Great, if only he world was that simple, only when Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and ISIS all sign it, it may be worth something. The greatest risk comes not from the USA, Russia, or China but from countries either seeking wider conflict or with dictatorial leadership that will preserve their position at ANY cost.

Nukes are a genie that will never go back into the bottle until something like the antimatter bomb comes along that is bigger in yield and relatively small.

It just isn't possible to uninvent the hydrogen bomb. Signatory nations can always store components to reassemble in times of conflict. It isn't the bombs themselves that are the issue, it's the knowledge of how to make them. That is something that can't be prohibited or abolished.

Nukes are a genie that will never go back into the bottle until something like the antimatter bomb comes along that is bigger in yield and relatively small.

It just isn't possible to uninvent the hydrogen bomb. Signatory nations can always store components to reassemble in times of conflict. It isn't the bombs themselves that are the issue, it's the knowledge of how to make them. That is something that can't be prohibited or abolished.

I imagine that nuclear power plants would also need to be eliminated if this treaty was to be effective.

Great, if only he world was that simple, only when Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and ISIS all sign it, it may be worth something. The greatest risk comes not from the USA, Russia, or China but from countries either seeking wider conflict or with dictatorial leadership that will preserve their position at ANY cost.

Just like calls for gun/weapons bans and restrictions...The risk is not from those who would abide by it, but from those who wouldn't.

"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."

There is the case that could be made for some smaller nations to disarm. South Africa did it. Brazil also cancelled its nuclear weapons program. It's hardly likely to happen though due to the febrile nature of global politics at the moment. India and Pakistan for instance could point to theirs as being the reason there hasn't been a major confrontation for years.

Israel, Britain and France? No chance. Same for China. Who does that leave?

Every permanent member of the UN security council has nuclear weapons, and has veto rights on UN decisions. How long do you think it will take for the veto to come down? Minutes or hours?

They have veto powers with the UN security council, not of everything the UN does. They will just ignore it, but they can't veto it.

It is a clear signal to the powers and hopefully, this will give America and Russia some excuse to reduce their stockpile to reasonable levels. Around 250 should be more than enough to reach havoc, no need to have 6 or 7 thousand of them.

Some people sometimes forget that there is a treaty in existence, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It has been ratified by most countries in the world, excluding India, Israel, Pakistan, South Sudan and North Korea has withdrawn.

The central bargain: the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals

You can judge how well the recognised nuclear states have fulfilled the disarmament bargain and how much pressure is put on all countries having not joined or withdrawn, too give up their nuclear weapons.

So it seems that most countries had already agreed to do what this resolution wants, just not when.

Some people sometimes forget that there is a treaty in existence, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It has been ratified by most countries in the world, excluding India, Israel, Pakistan, South Sudan and North Korea has withdrawn.

The central bargain: the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals

You can judge how well the recognised nuclear states have fulfilled the disarmament bargain and how much pressure is put on all countries having not joined or withdrawn, too give up their nuclear weapons.

So it seems that most countries had already agreed to do what this resolution wants, just not when.

Interesting how the newest countries to the nuclear club have not ratified the Treaty. In addition it has been widely speculated that North Korea and Pakistan have furnished nuclear technology to terrorists and rogue states.

Great, if only he world was that simple, only when Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and ISIS all sign it, it may be worth something. The greatest risk comes not from the USA, Russia, or China but from countries either seeking wider conflict or with dictatorial leadership that will preserve their position at ANY cost.

Just like calls for gun/weapons bans and restrictions...The risk is not from those who would abide by it, but from those who wouldn't.

Great, if only he world was that simple, only when Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and ISIS all sign it, it may be worth something. The greatest risk comes not from the USA, Russia, or China but from countries either seeking wider conflict or with dictatorial leadership that will preserve their position at ANY cost.

Just like calls for gun/weapons bans and restrictions...The risk is not from those who would abide by it, but from those who wouldn't.

So we should nothing?

You tell me...Should we tie our hands and, in effect, give all the cards to those who choose not to restrain themselves?

"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."

Just like calls for gun/weapons bans and restrictions...The risk is not from those who would abide by it, but from those who wouldn't.

So we should nothing?

You tell me...Should we tie our hands and, in effect, give all the cards to those who choose not to restrain themselves?

So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons, their normal military will be maintained. What do you think what will be changed? Or a bit more realistically, what if all the world's nuclear powers restrict themselves to 250 bombs, no more.

Pah! What a bunch of cowards Why restrict themselves to nuclear weapons? They should have outlawed all weapons with a range greater than a spear can be thrown by a human being. Just think what that would have done for world peace!

There's as much chance of countries abiding by that as this stupid nuclear resolution.

You tell me...Should we tie our hands and, in effect, give all the cards to those who choose not to restrain themselves?

So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons, their normal military will be maintained. What do you think what will be changed?

Is that a serious question?

How about deterrent of nefarious countries from being wiped off the face of the Earth in a retaliatory strike?

America still would have the most powerful military in the world, so you can still "wipe them off the face of the Earth" as you say. For a small country, it could have some merit. I understand North Korea's case, it is cheaper to have the bomb than a large modern military, the latter they can't afford, but that argument falls in the case of large countries.

KFLLCFII wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Or a bit more realistically, what if all the world's nuclear powers restrict themselves to 250 bombs, no more.

Sounds like a far-less deterrent than, say, 2,500...or 25,000.

So the 7k bombs the US has now is far less than a deterrent that 25,000? So the US is weak now? Or China is weak with its 200bombs? One bomb destroys a city, so how many cities do you need to be able to destroy to be taken seriously? Sorry to say, but everything above 250bombs is just throwing away a lot of money for keeping up appearance.

Great, if only he world was that simple, only when Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and ISIS all sign it, it may be worth something. The greatest risk comes not from the USA, Russia, or China but from countries either seeking wider conflict or with dictatorial leadership that will preserve their position at ANY cost.

Just like calls for gun/weapons bans and restrictions...The risk is not from those who would abide by it, but from those who wouldn't.

So we should nothing?

Perhaps. The current strategic balance between nuclear powers has yielded one of the most peaceful eras in human history. Why change something that is working?

Dutchy wrote:

So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons, their normal military will be maintained. What do you think what will be changed? Or a bit more realistically, what if all the world's nuclear powers restrict themselves to 250 bombs, no more.

1. If all nuclear weapons were decommissioned, then countries would not just "maintain" their conventional military. They would grow their conventional militaries to compensate for the loss of deterrence. It's quite possible a conventional arms race would follow.

2. Let's say the U.S. keeps just 250 warheads. The prevailing consensus is that nuclear weapons would only be useful as counter-value weapons. In other words, with just 250 nukes, all you can do is target your enemy's cities and kill as many civilians as possible. That is the polar opposite of the mainstream nuclear doctrine in the U.S., which is to use nuclear weapons as counter-force weapons against military targets.

2B. Economically, it would take most of the same fixed costs to maintain a force of 250 warheads as it would 2,500 or 5,000. It's not like we're going to send the entire U.S. nuclear force to sea on a single SSBN. To be of military value, you must have some flexibility and survivability in delivery method, yield, basing location, etc. So, I don't gain anything by cutting my nuclear force down to 250 warheads and but I loose a lot.

I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.

UN diplomats wasting millions to make pointless decisions like this one is what's wrong with the system. Time to cut UN funding by 50%.

Yes because cutting funding is gonna make the UN more effective ?? The UN was set up when the world was very different and it needs to have some changes made to it to make it more capable to deal with todays situtations. The question is if the members of the UN are willing to make those changes. I'm guessing there would be changes to the Security councel for instance .... Maybe no Security councel at all. Maybe adittional members With veto Powers etc ....

It is not the UN as such that is the problem, but rather the members that make up the UN. The UN can only be as good as it's member states and sadly many UN members, certainly the veto Powers are more interested in what gains their specific country rather than the world as a whole.

UN diplomats wasting millions to make pointless decisions like this one is what's wrong with the system. Time to cut UN funding by 50%.

Yes because cutting funding is gonna make the UN more effective ?? The UN was set up when the world was very different and it needs to have some changes made to it to make it more capable to deal with todays situtations. The question is if the members of the UN are willing to make those changes. I'm guessing there would be changes to the Security councel for instance .... Maybe no Security councel at all. Maybe adittional members With veto Powers etc ....

It is not the UN as such that is the problem, but rather the members that make up the UN. The UN can only be as good as it's member states and sadly many UN members, certainly the veto Powers are more interested in what gains their specific country rather than the world as a whole.

True, veto power will never be abandoned since that has to be done by a resolution of the security council. There are many changes that are needed, none will pass because of narrow self-interest.

I think there should still be a nuke reduction plan in place but don't think they should be eliminated entirely (especially for the main countries - the likes of Nth Korea/Iran/Pakistan should get rid of theirs however).

We never know when we may need nukes to protect the planet from space (be it asteroids or aliens).The threat of MAD or at least Significant AD has probably prevented a lot of conventional wars in the first place as the chance of them escalating is too dangerous.It also makes sense in the context of uneven powers. - An example would be that without nukes there is little Russia could do to stop China invading and taking half their country due to the sheer numbers of military personnel that China can field.

I think there should still be a nuke reduction plan in place but don't think they should be eliminated entirely (especially for the main countries - the likes of Nth Korea/Iran/Pakistan should get rid of theirs however).

We never know when we may need nukes to protect the planet from space (be it asteroids or aliens).The threat of MAD or at least Significant AD has probably prevented a lot of conventional wars in the first place as the chance of them escalating is too dangerous.It also makes sense in the context of uneven powers. - An example would be that without nukes there is little Russia could do to stop China invading and taking half their country due to the sheer numbers of military personnel that China can field.

Nukes don't work in space and aliens are way too smart if they have come over here, so we can agree that we don't need nukes

What I don't understand your logic, it is ok for Russia to have nukes to even the uneven powers in China and Russia, but it is not ok to even the uneven powers in America and North Korea. How do you feel about India having nuclear bombs? Or Israel - as we all know has hem? And you name Pakistan as the country which needs to get rid of theirs, although much can be said that Pakistan that nukes are even the playing field with India.

I think there should still be a nuke reduction plan in place but don't think they should be eliminated entirely (especially for the main countries - the likes of Nth Korea/Iran/Pakistan should get rid of theirs however).

Iran doesn´t have nukes.

We never know when we may need nukes to protect the planet from space (be it asteroids or aliens).

That would be a civilian application and exceptions for that are no problem. Just read the text of the NNPT, it is just 14 pages or so, which has exactly such provisions. One would also see that the West is violating the NNPT all the time.

The threat of MAD or at least Significant AD has probably prevented a lot of conventional wars in the first place as the chance of them escalating is too dangerous.

You think the USSR would have been that involved in Vietnam or the USA in Afghanistan or other proxy wars if there had been any real threat of a confrontation USSR <-> USA? In that case MAD would have led to more wars, not less.And there is also that bit of ending the world over a missunderstanding or missinterpretation. Operation RYAN rings a bell? The soviets being seriously on the edge during Able Archer 83´?

It also makes sense in the context of uneven powers. - An example would be that without nukes there is little Russia could do to stop China invading and taking half their country due to the sheer numbers of military personnel that China can field.

So, Nukes for everyone? The countries with nukes tend to be the countries with significant military forces at their disposal.

As the current situation is with overkill by nuclear weapons, with both the USA or Russia being able to detonate their weapons at home and than the world dies, including Antarctica, and having this possibility about twice over, it seems to me that their are quite a few nukes to many around.

As the current situation is with overkill by nuclear weapons, with both the USA or Russia being able to detonate their weapons at home and than the world dies, including Antarctica, and having this possibility about twice over, it seems to me that their are quite a few nukes to many around.

and they all signed that they would be actively working towards a nuke free world.

Look it is a crummy deal that it takes nukes to keep the peace but given that we are capable of producing Hitler types I'll live w it.

And by definition countries with nukes can't produce Hitler types? And why Hitler types? There was no nuclear weapons program with any priority beyond basic research and the massive stocks of chemical and available biological weapons where not used, no matter how dire the situation had become.Better pick a type that actually did deploy WMD.

Nuking Hitler types also isn't very precise in terms of collateral damage.

I think there should still be a nuke reduction plan in place but don't think they should be eliminated entirely (especially for the main countries - the likes of Nth Korea/Iran/Pakistan should get rid of theirs however).

We never know when we may need nukes to protect the planet from space (be it asteroids or aliens).The threat of MAD or at least Significant AD has probably prevented a lot of conventional wars in the first place as the chance of them escalating is too dangerous.It also makes sense in the context of uneven powers. - An example would be that without nukes there is little Russia could do to stop China invading and taking half their country due to the sheer numbers of military personnel that China can field.

Nukes don't work in space and aliens are way too smart if they have come over here, so we can agree that we don't need nukes

What I don't understand your logic, it is ok for Russia to have nukes to even the uneven powers in China and Russia, but it is not ok to even the uneven powers in America and North Korea. How do you feel about India having nuclear bombs? Or Israel - as we all know has hem? And you name Pakistan as the country which needs to get rid of theirs, although much can be said that Pakistan that nukes are even the playing field with India.

BTW Iran has no nukes, don't know where you get that from.

What makes you think that nukes won't work in space? Aliens might be have counter defences to nukes but that isn't certain - and nukes still pack a punch that could affect them.

Nobody knows what Iran actually has. Even if they don't have a working bomb they still have a whole heap of nuclear material (dirty bomb anyone?) which they shouldn't really have.

Both Russia and China are large powerful countries however militarily China has a vast manpower advantage so in a conventional war they would simply overwhelm Russian forces. With nukes it doesn't matter because if they tried it then the results would be equal destruction (MAD).North Korea vs USA on the other hand is completely different as the USA could wipe North Korea off the face of the earth either with conventional or nuclear weapons. However they aren't neighbours and North Korea is a regional threat to several countries (even China and Russia). They literally only have nukes to avoid being punished for their crimes against humanity and probably for ego reasons. There is no threat as such against them so long as they behave (the US doesn't want to get into a war with North Korea - neither does South Korea or Japan etc). So no need for them to have nukes.

Pakistan is a curious case. Ordinarily you could probably argue that it is defend against India. However when you consider how much the government etc in Pakistan has been infiltrated by the Taliban/Al Qaeda etc it is a scary thought to imagine them potentially having access to nukes.

Israel - has them as a result of being invaded on more than one occasion by one or more of it's neighbours.

End of the day the more countries (especially smaller less developed countries) that have nukes the higher chance that a mistake of some sort will be made.

Btw, in your haste to argue you made my point when you stated that the Nazis never deployed chem/bio weapons. The only reason they didn't was because B17 and Lancaster's would have responded in kind. You see how deterrence works against Hitler( read megalomaniacs ) types? Not moving too fast I hope.

Btw, in your haste to argue you made my point when you stated that the Nazis never deployed chem/bio weapons. The only reason they didn't was because B17 and Lancaster's would have responded in kind. You see how deterrence works against Hitler( read megalomaniacs ) types? Not moving too fast I hope.

I'd say Hitler's exposure to gas during WW1 was more influential in the decision by Germany not to use gas than anything else. Important point to note that the UK had contingency plans to use chem weapons in 1940 should a German invasion have taken hold.

Ozair, Hitler had no compunctions about using gas in ww2. Keep in mind, he gassed millions of defenseless people.

It could be argued Hitler and the Nazi party did not believe Jews qualified as people. Either way, when it comes to gas use in WW2 I don’t consider retaliation as the sole reason for its non-use on the battlefield.

Planeflyer wrote:

Deterrence works, even against the worst sorts.

Certainly not arguing against that, I also agree that deterrence has worked and continues to work, especially from the maintenance of nuclear arsenals.

The Nazi's knew all too well their victims were people which is why they used gas in the first place and then tried to their best to hide their crimes. You see, even the most ardent of Nazis found it difficult to kill as many people as was required for the final solution. Gas was employed to automate the mass murder.

As the current situation is with overkill by nuclear weapons, with both the USA or Russia being able to detonate their weapons at home and than the world dies, including Antarctica, and having this possibility about twice over, it seems to me that their are quite a few nukes to many around.

We have had sufficient understanding of the blast effects and health effects of radioactive falllout to understand this is false since at least the 1970's.

I'm not ready to say get rid of all of them just yet, but I'm not afraid of starting further discussions with Russia about the next step in reductions after the terms of the New START treaty are fulfilled in 2021. 1500 warheads is more than enough deterrent. The inactive stockpile can also be radically reduced. As those warheads are not in a state where they can be delivered promptly anyways, they don't contribute to the deterrent.

Btw, in your haste to argue you made my point when you stated that the Nazis never deployed chem/bio weapons. The only reason they didn't was because B17 and Lancaster's would have responded in kind. You see how deterrence works against Hitler( read megalomaniacs ) types? Not moving too fast I hope.

Right, because those B17s and Lancasters did fly deep into Germany starting day one, and the German government was never ever convinced that its air defenses where impenetrable.... if they ever bomb Berlin my name shall be Meier and such. Not just did the Deutsches Reich consider itself safe, it considered itself invincible.

Planeflyer wrote:

Ozair, Hitler had no compunctions about using gas in ww2. Keep in mind, he gassed millions of defenseless people..

Try getting your numbers right. The Nazis killed several million defenseless people, but they gassed only a friction of it.

Planeflyer wrote:

The Nazi's knew all too well their victims were people which is why they used gas in the first place and then tried to their best to hide their crimes. You see, even the most ardent of Nazis found it difficult to kill as many people as was required for the final solution. Gas was employed to automate the mass murder.

The Nazis had no problem to do mass killing without gas, which is pretty obvious by the simple fact that less than 10% of the camp victims where actually gassed. The idea of using gas did also not come top down, but bottom up, from a mere Captain: Karl Fritzsch. Did it make him popular with the government? Nope, he was later tried for corruption and murder and served in a front line unit after that as his punishment.... They also didn´t hide the evidence because they used gas, they tried to have as little evidence of their mass killings at all because they knew, they said as much, that what they where doing could never be justified.That is right, they are on record saying that their actions can not even be justified, even within their own philosophy.

Ozair wrote:

Certainly not arguing against that, I also agree that deterrence has worked and continues to work, especially from the maintenance of nuclear arsenals.

And it is a strawman in the first place, since no one is saying deterrence doesn´t work, only that it does come with a non-insignificant threat of wiping out menkind over a missunderstanding/missinterpretation.

Tommy, the agreed upon # of nazi murders is 11 million. Given your knowledge of Captain Fritzsch you know as well as I that a few million as bad as this is significantly understates the magnitude of the crime.

I don't know how many were killed w gas but for our discussion it does not matter.

Ozair made the arguement that Hitler was motivated by his experience w gas in ww1 not repeat its use in ww2.

The fact that he used it in concentration camps proved he had no compunction against its use.

It seems reasonable to assume the only reason he didn't use it on the allies was he knew the consequences. This is deterrence. And I'm sure his experience sitting out Lancaster and B17 raids in bunkers played the primary role.

And those raids didn't start on day 1. They started after the war was started. Now since you seem to be a nazi and no doubt a Bushido expert remind us all who did start it.

I'll agree w u that deterrence comes w significant costs. But nukes played a significant role is civilizing two of the most barbarous societies that ever existed.

Tommy, the agreed upon # of nazi murders is 11 million. Given your knowledge of Captain Fritzsch you know as well as I that a few million as bad as this is significantly understates the magnitude of the crime.

Yeah, i know. Actually somewhere between 10 and 14 million should be correct. The number of those killed with gas is about ~1 million, that is 7 to 10%.

And yup, there is no doubt, in terms of crimes against humanity that deserves the top stop, even with others killing greater numbers, for various reasons.

The fact that he used it in concentration camps proved he had no compunction against its use.

That is no battlefield use and falls into the category of military basically just using FMJ and law enforcement often using hollow points.There is a wired disconnect between the two and many other things, same with the holocaust. There are even letters of reprimand against soldiers, because they did the killings unnecessarily gruel in mobile gas chambers (that are supposed to kill with CO, but since the soldiers wanted to get it over with it asap and stepped on the pedal, people actually suffocated). ...... talk about being crazy.

It seems reasonable to assume the only reason he didn't use it on the allies was he knew the consequences. This is deterrence. And I'm sure his experience sitting out Lancaster and B17 raids in bunkers played the primary role.

That the guy "fighting" to the last man, refusing to even tactically yielding ground and even sending 12 year olds into battle goes a long way to show that he didn´t care much for consequences. During the final stretch of the war even trains bringing Jews to the camps had priority over critical war supplies. That is how much he cared about consequences. Also, he wasn´t sitting out much in the way of raids before 1943.

And those raids didn't start on day 1. They started after the war was started. Now since you seem to be a nazi and no doubt a Bushido expert remind us all who did start it.

Gosh, what am i not? Here i am a Nazi, one forum down i am far left.... whats up with the ad Hominem attacks.

I'll agree w u that deterrence comes w significant costs. But nukes played a significant role is civilizing two of the most barbarous societies that ever existed.

Tough shit on both of them.

And having that nuclear shield cost a lot of people in proxy wars their lives on the other side of the balance sheet, and may end up killing everyone over just one stupid mistake.

Nuclear weapons will never go away. I believe it's possible to reduce the arsenals to a few hundred warheads combined, but they'll never completely be removed. The MAD doctrine is very interesting, but I have some doubts how it would work out in a real world scenario. If one nation decides to use a nuclear warhead on another, I'm not convinced it will trigger a hailstorm of nukes in return.

It's a bit similar as the theory of democratic market economies never going to war with another because of the economic repercussions. We've seen this theory fail in Ukraine already. The sanctions that have been placed on Russia in return are fairly soft, precisely because nobody wants to deal with the economic disaster. One could argue that Russia is not a true democratic market economy, but in this context I would say they are.